2013 P Cr. L J 787
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, JJ
ABDUL BAQI ---Appella nt
Versus
ATTAULLAH and 2 others ---Respondents
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 141 of 2012, decided on 23rd January, 2013.
Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) ---
----S. 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2) ---Prevention of i llegal possession of
property ---Appeal against acquittal ---Appreciation of evidence ---Trial Court dismissed
complaint filed against the accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 ---Validity ---
Dispute was purely of civil nature ---Record showed that a ccused was not in possession or
occupation of disputed property, therefore, no question of dispossession or ejectment or ouster of
complainant from the disputed property arose ---Record further showed that a house had been
built on disputed property and it was in possession of a person, who had been residing therein for
the last fifteen years ---Said person was not a party in the complaint filed against the accused ---
Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not applicable in such circumstances ---Trial
Court was justified in acquitting the accused ---Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed
accordingly.
Behlol Khan Kasi for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2012.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---This Criminal Acquittal Ap peal under section
417(2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31st March, 2012 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II Quetta, whereby the complainant under sections 3 and 4
of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the
accused/respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly, the appellant filed a complaint under sections 3, 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act,
2005 against the respondent No.1. In the said complaint, the appellant claimed to be recorded
owner of land bearing Mutation No.2735, Khasra Nos.3834, 3930, 1185, 1044 and 1045,
measuring 791 sq. ft. situated in Mohal and Mouza Ward No.57, Tappa Urban Tehsil City,
District Quetta, which he had purchas ed from one Malik Muhammad Hashim son of Haji
Ghulam Sarwar in the year 1997. According to the complainant/appellant he was in possession
of the same since the time of its purchase. However, a week back when he went to site of the plot
he found that the re spondent No.1 is in its illegal occupation.
3. After filing of complaint the learned trial Court sent for a report from SHO Police
Station, Pashtoonabad, Quetta. After getting report from respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was
summoned and on his appearanc e charge was framed on 20th July, 2009 to which he did not
plead guilty and claimed trial of the case.
4. To prove his case the complainant produced as many as two witnesses namely Allauddin
(P.W.1) and Haji Abdul Baqi (P.W.2). After recording the stat ement of complainant,
prosecution side was closed and statement of respondent No.1 was recorded under section 342,
Cr.P.C. The respondent No. 1 produced D.W. Noor Muhammad in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court after assessing the entire evidence, on corning to the conclusion
that the complainant has failed to prove its case against the respondent No.1 and acquitted the
accused/respondent No.1 vide order dated 31st March, 2012, hence this appeal.
6. Mr. Behlol Khan Kasi, learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted that the
learned trial Court has misread the evidence of complainant' witnesses and wrongly acquitted the
accused/respondent No.1 from the charge. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has
not provided opportunity to implead the Noor Muhammad paternal uncle of the Attaullah
(respondent No.1) as respondent.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have gone through
the record, perusal of the record reveals that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil
nature and accused/respondent No.1 is not in occupation or possession of the plot in question,
therefore, no question of his dispossession or ejectment or ouster from the plot would rise. The
record further shows th at paka house is constructed on the plot in question and is in occupation
of one Noor Muhammad. He is residing in the said house for the last fifteen years, who is not
party in the complaint, which is purely a civil nature and the provisions of Illegal Dis possession
Act are not applicable in this case. The learned trial Court has advanced valid and cogent reasons
in passing of the acquittal of the accused/respondent No.1 and we see no reason to disturb the
same and the learned trial Court was justified in a cquitting the respondent No.1 therefore, the
impugned order call for no interference.
8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 31st March, 2012
passed by Additional Sessions Judge -II is maintained accordingly.
MWA/29/Q Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.